Sociobiology, Kin Relationships, Altruism and Humans

 

I read a very interesting article in Discover recently about inclusive fitness and it got me thinking, but first, some background. In 1975, biologist E.O. Wilson published Sociobiology, a refinement of evolutionary theory that claimed that social behaviors were often genetically programmed into species to help them survive. He claimed that  altruism (although it is technically a self-destructive behavior performed for the benefit of others) actually ensured that your genes would be passed on through "inclusive fitness", which basically meant that because your altruism helped others (typically your family), then your whole family would benefit and have their genes pass on to the next generation. This theory went on to become quite popular, and by the 1990s was accepted as a core tenet of evolutionary psychology and biology.

Now, however, Wilson is  taking back his findings and claiming that altruism does not drive evolution, that in fact, altruism would emerge whether or not you were protecting your kin. He claims that when people compete against each other they are selfish, but when group selection becomes important, the altruism of human societies would automatically kicks in, claiming that humans may be the only species intelligent enough to strike a balance between group and individual level gains.

I think this theory (and the recent change) is interesting because it basically claims two things: altruism is an inherent characteristic in humans that emerges when we sense that group "fitness" is necessary, and secondly, that humans may be the only species that can not only distinguish when this need occurs, but also distinguish between when individual needs (with a selfish approach) or group needs (with an altruistic approach) is necessary. When I look at the workplace, I can tell you that this happens, but I don't know if it's called altruism any more. In the same vein that humans are smart enough to determine when there is a need to act for the good of the group, it seems that they also know when there's a benefit in acting for others in order to better themselves. For example, you typically compete with your colleagues in the average workplace, but if the colleague realizes that a project is due and you will all need to work well together to finish on time, they may give encouragement and praise to others on the team to make a better working environment. I'd argue that this is not necessarily altruistic (they still want to finish the project on time so that they don't get in trouble), but that's also not necessarily bad.

I think that in the case of the workplace, having this type of mentality (helping the group for the good of one) is probably more frequent than helping the group for the needs of the group, although I do think that they can be cooperative needs. And why not? It might actually be better (at least in the workplace) if altruism informed less of our decisions and we were slightly more selfish- then there is less of a chance that altruistic behavior would color other actions- that might actually be detrimental in the long run (altruism in hiring/firing/promoting if that person isn't ready, for example). So....I say, selfish or not- whatever you want to call it- just make sure you keep end goals in mind. At least in the workplace.